The Ref Stop

Real W vs City W

one

one

RefChat Addict
89th minute disallowed goal. Ref gets in the way of a defender who can clearly intercept a RM pass/cut back. Ball goes to a RM player. Ref blows the whistle for a drop ball just before the RM player scores. Not in line with the laws (in fact one can argue it is an error in law) but very much in line with the spirit of the laws. Why not just include it in the laws?

I had a similar one late in a game in the penultimate round of our season and I did not stop the game (correct in law) but I regretted it later. Did not impact the final result but nonetheless it did not feel fair.
 
Last edited:
The Ref Stop
sh*t happens - you messed up, you have to deal with the deserved sh*t you get. penalising RM totally incorrect in law, cant just make it up to make life easier for yourself, cheating the game out of the right outcome.
 
Being pedantic, it wasn’t a disallowed goal as the referee blew her whistle before the striker took a shot at goal. I’m with the others though as it’s incorrect in law.
 
Incorrect in law... but I've done it before in the right scenario. It's right for the game IMO. Very unlucky that it's resulted in a goal. With that said, you're gonna piss someone off either way if the ball goes in, so you'd rather be correct in law and piss someone off than incorrect in law and piss someone off.
 
It's been seen many times in professional games. I'm really curious about instructions that are being given to professional referees. I frankly wouldn't be surprised if this is an actual instruction that, in the spirit of the game, referees should give a drop ball if, in their opinion, they materially interfered with a player. (And there may be some reluctance to formalizing that in the Laws in a way that might induce crafty players who can't make a play to run into the referee and claim they were interfered with.)

Being incorrect in Law, is an interesting technical question. If a referee blows the whistle and there is not an otherwise indicated restart, the proper restart is a DB. So if (hypothetically) a referee blows the whistle and then the AR says "wait, the ball didn't hit you," and the R says "gee, you're right, I shouldn't have stopped play," the whistle becomes an inadvertent whistle--and the restart is a DB. So, I don't think it is incorrect in Law in the sense of the kind of error that would result in a replay. (It would be a different discussion if it actually did take a goal away--but as @PP62 noted above, play was stopped before the ball entered the goal.)

Long winded way of saying, whatever we think from a technical reading of the Laws as they exist as to whether she should have blown the whistle, I suspect that the powers that be support the call on the field. (And I think there is absolutely zero chance that a replay could be awarded based on this incident.)
 
Big Cat said:
Yes, should be further left
But even if she was, the same thing could've happened

Long overdue that impeding a player should be treated the same as being struck by the ball
Click to expand...
The only concern for me with impeding a player being treated the same is that players should make an active effort to avoid the referee in the same way that referees should avoid players (imo).
I don’t want to open the door to a world where a player who isn’t getting to their opponent will run in to the referee and claim they were impeded. But yes I do agree with the sentiment, genuine blocks that are the refs fault and are impactful should result in a drop ball for the benefit of fairness
 
socal lurker said:
It's been seen many times in professional games. I'm really curious about instructions that are being given to professional referees. I frankly wouldn't be surprised if this is an actual instruction that, in the spirit of the game, referees should give a drop ball if, in their opinion, they materially interfered with a player. (And there may be some reluctance to formalizing that in the Laws in a way that might induce crafty players who can't make a play to run into the referee and claim they were interfered with.)

Being incorrect in Law, is an interesting technical question. If a referee blows the whistle and there is not an otherwise indicated restart, the proper restart is a DB. So if (hypothetically) a referee blows the whistle and then the AR says "wait, the ball didn't hit you," and the R says "gee, you're right, I shouldn't have stopped play," the whistle becomes an inadvertent whistle--and the restart is a DB. So, I don't think it is incorrect in Law in the sense of the kind of error that would result in a replay. (It would be a different discussion if it actually did take a goal away--but as @PP62 noted above, play was stopped before the ball entered the goal.)

Long winded way of saying, whatever we think from a technical reading of the Laws as they exist as to whether she should have blown the whistle, I suspect that the powers that be support the call on the field. (And I think there is absolutely zero chance that a replay could be awarded based on this incident.)
Click to expand...
I don't think there is a question over the restart being incorrect in law. Was stopping the game correct in law? Granted we take for a fact that it was stopped for interfering with a player.

Of course the referee can claim (as you say) she thought the ball hit her and it becomes an error of factual judgement.
 
one said:
I don't think there is a question over the restart being incorrect in law. Was stopping the game correct in law? Granted we take for a fact that it was stopped for interfering with a player.

Of course the referee can claim (as you say) she thought the ball hit her and it becomes an error of factual judgement.
Click to expand...
No, I didn’t suggest that a ref just say she thought it hit her. My point is that I don’t think it is an error subject to protest if the R stops play. If the R stops play for OS and realizes it was played by a defender not an attacker. The R restarts with a DB. That isn’t protestable as an error of law—the R corrected the erroneous whistle with a proper restart. The odd thing here is that the proper restart for a whistle that shouldn’t have been blown is the same as what the R intended in stopping play. I imagine the powers that be are going to have something to say, as there have been a number of refs who have stopped play for a collision with a player. (I thought, but am not sure, that one was supported by the relevant authorities,)
 
socal lurker said:
No, I didn’t suggest that a ref just say she thought it hit her. My point is that I don’t think it is an error subject to protest if the R stops play. If the R stops play for OS and realizes it was played by a defender not an attacker. The R restarts with a DB. That isn’t protestable as an error of law—the R corrected the erroneous whistle with a proper restart. The odd thing here is that the proper restart for a whistle that shouldn’t have been blown is the same as what the R intended in stopping play. I imagine the powers that be are going to have something to say, as there have been a number of refs who have stopped play for a collision with a player. (I thought, but am not sure, that one was supported by the relevant authorities,)
Click to expand...
I think we are talking different things.
To make clear question, if the referee says I stopped play because I interfered with a defender being able to play the ball, is this an error in law in your opinion?
The restart is not in question.
 
Well, I’m going to give a round about only sort of answer to that. I think in the days when we actually believed in ITOOTR, this would be a total non issue if the R chose to stop play. Now, a harder question as we’ve tried to move to micro directives of every possibility. But I think my ultimate answer, perhaps because I still want ITOOTR TO Mtter, would be no error in Law. The referee has a certain amount of discretion, and if the R stops play for a reason not directing another restart, the proper start is a DB. (Somewhat akin to it not being an error in Law to not play advantage even if a player was certain to score if the foul was not called.) while that is my opinion, I don’t know that the powers that be would agree from a technical perspective. But I think they would agree in the sense of not ordering a replay for it if a protest was made.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top